Heirs of Vda. De Haberer vs.

CA, Federico Martinez et al

PLAINTIFF: Heirs of Vda De Haberer, legal counsel

DEFENDANT: CA
DATE: May 26, 1981
PONENTE: J. Teehankee
TOPIC: Substitution in case of Death of Principal

TYPE OF CASE: Rule 65, GADALEJ

VENUE:
CAUSE OF ACTION: 11 complaints for recovery of possession
RESOLUTION: Petition, Granted

Facts:

 During the lifetime of Florentina Nuguid Vda. De Haberer, she appealed the decision of the trial court in dismissing her 11
complaints for recovery of possession of a parcel of land registered under her name
 Upon her death her legal counsel filed 3 motions for the suspension of the running period for filing appellant’s brief
o June 29, 1977 – unacted
o September 18, 1975 – still asking for suspension
o November 24, 1975 – RTC denied
 Because the appellant had already been given 195 days to file her brief
 That the appellant had no right to assume that such extension will be granted as a matter of right

Issue: W/N the respondent court is correct in dismissing the case and not granting the substitution, YES

Ruling:

The respondent court is not correct in following the rule set in Section 17, Rule 3 ROC. The should have done the following:
 Required the appearance of the legal representative
 NOT to dismiss the appeal of the deceased who had yet to be substituted in the pending appeal

The legal counsel of the appellant was right as to their actions.

In the case at bar, they properly informed the respondent court of the death of the appellant and sought suspension of the
proceedings and of the period for the filing of the appellant’s brief pending the appointment of the executor of the deceased’s estate
in the proper probate proceedings filed with the CFI of QC.

Section 17, Rule 3 of ROC sets the rule on substitution of parties in case of death of any of the parties. Under the Rule, it is the
court called upon, after notice of a party’s death and the claim is not thereby extinguished, to order upon the proper notice the legal
representative of the deceased to appear within the period of 30days or such time as it may grant. Since no administrator of the
estate of the deceased appellant have been appointed as the same was still pending determination in the CFI of QC.
 The motion of the deceased’s counsel for the suspension of the running of the period was well taken
 Under the Rule, it should have set a period for the substitution of the deceased party with her legal representative of heirs
failing, which the court is called upon to order the opposing party to procure the appointment of a legal representative of
the deceased’s estate, and such representative shall then “immediately appear and on behalf of the interest of the
deceased.”